Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Record that you walked a member through the SOP

ic_headsets_mark_sop_complete
Idempotent

Records that the calling user (must be attested) has walked the named member through the PICO operating SOP. Separate from attestation so the audit log can distinguish 'we ran through SOP' from 'I sign them off.' Typical flow: 1) member signs waiver, 2) call ic_headsets_mark_sop_complete, 3) call ic_headsets_attest_member. Args: { subject_user_id }. Returns: { ok, record }. Required scope: headsets:lend.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subject_user_idYes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about audit log separation and requires the calling user to be attested, but does not elaborate on rate limits, error cases, or other behavioral traits. It provides moderate additional value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is three sentences plus a brief list, front-loading the core action. Every sentence is informative, though the explicit 'Args:' line is redundant given the schema. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple record-keeping tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the tool's role in the workflow (waiver, SOP, attestation) and notes the return format. However, it lacks details on error cases, timeouts, or what happens if the user is not attested.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage; the single parameter subject_user_id is only listed as 'Args: { subject_user_id }' without any explanation of what it represents. Description fails to clarify how 'named member' maps to this parameter, adding no meaning beyond the field name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Records that the calling user... has walked the named member through the PICO operating SOP,' using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool ic_headsets_attest_member by noting the separation for audit log purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description tells when to use this tool (after waiver, before attestation) and why (audit log distinction between SOP walkthrough and sign-off). It also provides a typical flow and mentions required scope, giving clear guidance on when to invoke.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Immersive Commons toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly scoped to distinct actions (e.g., ic_hack_apply vs. ic_hack_register, ic_rooms_create vs. ic_rooms_join). A few pairs could confuse an agent: floor10_submit_highlight vs. floorcast_push both submit HighlightStories but to different queues, and ic_directory_search / ic_agent_directory_lookup / ic_admin_list_members overlap in searching members. Overall, the long descriptions help disambiguate, but the volume requires careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is ic_<domain>_<verb>_<object> (e.g., ic_admin_list_pending_events, ic_headsets_checkout), but there are notable deviations: floor10_* and floorcast_* prefixes break the ic_ convention, and a few tools use noun-style names (ic_health, ic_capabilities, ic_donations_total). Verb placement also varies (get_* vs *_get, e.g., ic_get_my_membership vs. ic_membership_set_profile). Still, most names are readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

175 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, far beyond the 50+ threshold that indicates an unwieldy surface. While the platform covers many domains (events, files, hackathon, headsets, prints, rooms, etc.), bundling everything into one server makes discovery and selection difficult. This would be better split into several narrowly-scoped servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers nearly every lifecycle for each domain: CRUD for files/folders, full hackathon admissions and judging, headset lending with waivers and incidents, print farm submission and handoffs, and room coordination. Minor gaps exist: no delete for files/folders, no cancel for events, and some actions (like revoking a Z.ai key or tearing down a room) are explicitly left to human console use. Overall, the surface is remarkably comprehensive for the stated scope.

Resources